[meteorite-list] whole stone concerns / Mifflin, WHAT is amiss

From: jason utas <jasonutas_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 01:41:53 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimgGSiza4g3Pvdj-Z4Xkt5Px+pngg_at_mail.gmail.com>

Hello All,
If we require in-situ photos, the next con-artist could simply drop
the stones on their lawn (wherever that might be) and snap some photos
before selling their stones "with provenance." Or maybe the fake
material will be placed in front of a recognizable landmark in the
strewn-field before being photographed.

There is really no way to *prove* the veracity of a finder's claims
short of a detailed analysis. I agree that in-situ photos are nice,
but they're as much proof as the label that accompanied the "Mifflin"
that I purchased on ebay (that came from a 'reputable dealer,' and
that stated that the stone was a piece of Mifflin). If I'd been as
trusting as the other people who had handled it and seen photos on
ebay and elsewhere online (scores of us collectors), I'd have thought
it was Mifflin as well. In-situ photos are as good as a label; I'd
trust them only if they came from someone I trusted.

The IMCA is far from perfect, but it is better than nothing. That
said, there are a few members who I would personally not buy from.
I dislike that, as a member, I am effectively endorsing them,
but...I'm working on it.

We've got to face the reality that these stones were visible to our
entire community on ebay and other websites for months, and no one (to
my knowledge) seriously voiced the concern that they might be
something other than Mifflin. If anyone had taken the time to ask,
they would likely have found out that these stones originated with
Carl Esparza, and, while I feel it would be legally unwise to say
anything against the man's integrity, he has previously been removed
from the IMCA and accused of other things as well.

Everyone who handled and saw photos of those specimens was so trusting
of what they were told that they saw only what was written on the
specimens' labels, as opposed to what the meteorites would have shown
them, had they scrutinized them.

Collectors and dealers should more thoroughly examine the specimens
they are trading. I'd like to say that, if you can't tell a fake item
from one that's real, or aren't willing to take it to someone who can
verify its authenticity, you probably shouldn't be selling it. I
agree that it seems like a lot to ask, but we're talking about items
worth thousands of dollars here. Art dealers take care to have things
authenticated -- yes, it costs time and money, but...we're not trading
bottle-caps here. It might be a good thing if we all spent a little
more time, money, and effort in making sure that what we have is
actually what we think we have, and perhaps thoroughly documenting our
own collections.

What if some of those pseudo-Mifflins had been sold or donated to
labs, and used in research? We're dealing with scientifically
relevant material here, and since we're the ones buying and selling
these things for fun or for profit, it's our responsibility to make
sure that we don't allow others to cheat us -- or ourselves to cheat
others.

Regards,
Jason
Received on Mon 09 May 2011 04:41:53 AM PDT